Author Topic: What is a Militia? (Read 21388 times)

Toad · « **Reply #615 on:** January 02, 2008, 08:41:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
As for the "judge" and the various shotgun revolvers and derringers.. they have rifling in the barrel so are not considered shotguns in any case.
lazs

Ahhhh, shoot. You told him.

I was going to let him display more of his in-depth research and all inclusive knowledge of this entire subject area.

How long do you think it'd take to hone out the rifling? Maybe just a little longer than it takes to erase the microstamping from a firing pin?

Bingolong · « **Reply #616 on:** January 02, 2008, 10:20:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
I see. So, since the Miller gun was sawed off at both barrel and stock it was not a shoulder fired weapon either.

Thus it is just like your derringer?

Nope its not a weapon used in the military in 1939.

Bingolong · « **Reply #617 on:** January 02, 2008, 10:24:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Ahhhh, shoot. You told him.

I was going to let him display more of his in-depth research and all inclusive knowledge of this entire subject area.

How long do you think it'd take to hone out the rifling? Maybe just a little longer than it takes to erase the microstamping from a firing pin?

hehe your a card I knew it was rifled. you do not pass go. just pointing out what makes a shotgun for ya, it also says smooth bore as well as shoulder fired. Since you didnt know. And were calling it a 3" shotgun

Bingolong · « **Reply #618 on:** January 02, 2008, 10:47:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
arlo.. the "people" is every citizen.. nothing you cited changes that... "collective right" means nothing. It would have no meaning in any amendment that used the words "the people" except to mean the every citizen.

Other than that.. "collective right" is jibberish... It can only mean every citizen.. not some sort of hive mentality.

bingie.. I think toad answered you.. the second does not mean nor did miller mean that only current arms used by the military or.. militia.. were protected..

As for the "judge" and the various shotgun revolvers and derringers.. they have rifling in the barrel so are not considered shotguns in any case. In fact... you can buy shot loads for many popular caliber handguns including .22

lazs

Toad did not answer me I answered you.

You said:"The reason miller was not allowed to own a sawn off shotgun was because the court was mislead by the government.. they were lied to. the government said that a sawn off shotgun had no military or defense (miltia) purpose."
they knew this to be a lie since the government had used sawn off shotguns in wars in the past."

I said where they did use shotguns and I posted the law pertaining to weapons of 1934 there were no sawed off SHOTGUNS in use at the time by anyone since there were outlawed in 1934. I dont care if they used a sawed off double barrel in before 1934. the law when they wrote miller was at 1939 not previous wars. and that the government wasnt lied to. as it was not in use by the military at the time.

dont twist things around please. Toad from what I can tell just came barging back in and did not know what we were talking about. NORMAL! Posted his judge and tried to call it a shotgun with a 3" barrel.

lazs2 · « **Reply #619 on:** January 02, 2008, 02:27:12 PM »

bingie... actually, one of the judges asked the government toadie if a sawn off shotgun could have any martial use.. they lied and said no.

But.. If you want to use miller... then I would say that machine guns and automatic weapons would pass the miller muster as being weapons that are quite useful.

lazs

Toad · « **Reply #620 on:** January 02, 2008, 03:06:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bingolong

So is this a shotgun? It's not shoulder fired.

Arlo · « **Reply #621 on:** January 02, 2008, 03:21:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
How even more Nash-like.

That's it Arlo; of course! It's not what/how YOU write. It's the inability of nearly everyone else on the BBS to correctly understand what you wrote.

Couldn't be you; has to be the other guy.

You're not "everyone else" on the BBS yet, pot. But I can see you working hard at "coming to an understanding" via presumption.

Arlo · « **Reply #622 on:** January 02, 2008, 03:26:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
arlo.. the "people" is every citizen.. nothing you cited changes that... "collective right" means nothing. It would have no meaning in any amendment that used the words "the people" except to mean the every citizen.

Nothing I cited changes people=citizens .... all of them. Gotcha. Didn't think I presented anything other than.

Toad · « **Reply #623 on:** January 02, 2008, 03:35:36 PM »

BTW, Bingolong, you never answered this question either. Please do.

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Is it your position that Miller is somehow linked solely to weapons that were US military issue in 1939?

Quote

Bingolong: just pointing out what makes a shotgun for ya, it also says smooth bore as well as shoulder fired.

And how do you explain Miller's gun being considered a shotgun? Clearly it wasn't shoulder fired. The buttstock was cut down to basically a pistol grip.

Arlo · « **Reply #624 on:** January 02, 2008, 03:38:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
And how do you explain Miller's gun being considered a shotgun? Clearly it wasn't shoulder fired. The buttstock was cut down to basically a pistol grip.

Point of order ... "shoulder fired" is not a defining element of "shotgun."

Sayin'.

bsdaddict · « **Reply #625 on:** January 02, 2008, 03:45:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
Nothing I cited changes people=citizens .... all of them. Gotcha. Didn't think I presented anything other than.

I'm really hoping the SCOTUS gives you a big STFU smackdown, but these days, who knows...

Arlo · « **Reply #626 on:** January 02, 2008, 03:47:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bsdaddict
I'm really hoping the SCOTUS gives you a big STFU smackdown, but these days, who knows...

Pretty sure that the SCOTUS doesn't have as much a personal issue with me as you apparently do.

bsdaddict · « **Reply #627 on:** January 02, 2008, 03:56:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
Pretty sure that the SCOTUS doesn't have as much a personal issue with me as you apparently do.

I was referring to your statement that "people=citizens .... all of them", which to me smacks of collectivism and socialism and is what I'm hoping the SCOTUS smacks down. I have no problem with you personally, sorry if I came across as if I did...

Arlo · « **Reply #628 on:** January 02, 2008, 04:21:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bsdaddict
I was referring to your statement that "people=citizens .... all of them", which to me smacks of collectivism and socialism and is what I'm hoping the SCOTUS smacks down. I have no problem with you personally, sorry if I came across as if I did...

There are times throughout history the people of this land were refered to as just that, the *people* of this land. Such references pre-date socialism, whether political or economic. (And, as a side-note, capitalism is neither the defining factor of democracy or freedom. Take China, for example.) So, when it comes to fear of anything remotely resembling socialism regarding the intent of wording in the constitution, I take that with a grain of salt. Modern arguments out of historical context run the risk of redefining original intent no matter which way the butter knife is swung.

Good to hear there's nothing personal implied. And I'm prepared to accept whatever the SCOTUS rules, myself. But what I cited shows a trend of the SC ruling that the wording of the Constitution, regarding "We the People" in the constitutional preamble as defining the nature of our governmental body as being a citizen-participatory one through representation. Nothing more or less to read into. Do individuals have rights? Of course they do. Rights to own a gun? No argument here. Right to not have government regulate certain types of weapons in order to insure tranquility? Under debate, it seems. A given, one way or another? Only to those with a hardset agenda.

bsdaddict · « **Reply #629 on:** January 02, 2008, 04:46:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
Do individuals have rights? Of course they do. Rights to own a gun? No argument here. Right to not have government regulate certain types of weapons in order to insure tranquility? Under debate, it seems. A given, one way or another? Only to those with a hardset agenda.

My only "agenda" is that rights belong to individuals, not groups. That concept is pretty core to libertarian philosophy.

The Constitution and BoR DO NOT recognize the rights of GROUPS, they simply enumerate some INDIVIDUAL rights, admonishes the FedGov to not mess with said rights, defines the scope of the FedGov and leaves everything else up to the States. They even recognize that the list of rights they're covering isn't exhaustive, as a saftey net. They do not create rights, nor do SCOTUS rulings. They simply RECOGNIZE them.

Rights aren't "created" by anything, other than me being a living, breathing human being. That's the concept behind "inalienable rights" and "All men are created equal". I own them, they're mine. You've got the same rights, and they're yours. Gov't doesn't "give" them to us, nor can it take them away. Furthermore, accepting any Gov't interference with my exercising my rights (registration, permits, licenses, etc...) is akin to having to ask permission. If you have to ask permission to do something or register prior to exercising a right, then you're not truely free to do it, are you?